running a red light - Page 2

Ralliart · 06-08-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfr rob

what??
\I watched a bloke get done that same spot, he was probably 50 over, he flew through it and bang bang, he was pinged, looked like he stole the car anyway. :togo:

i only way i can think the fine would be that much is if he/she were speeding.

sfr rob · 06-08-2007, 06:35 PM

No worries, just didn't get what D8M meant? Actually, I still Don't!

XHUTE6 · 08-08-2007, 01:48 PM

natasha, the technicality is, you probably came to a complete stop... if you just keep going then you have no right of appeal.
If you come to a complete stop in the middle of the intersection, you are then obstructing the flow of traffic and you MUST move on. The lights will flash again but you are only doing what is required by law.
You wrote a letter and they let you off because you explained your situation and they could see that you came to a complete stop. unfortunately for me i just kept going.

Best of luck Shuresm58! Let us know how it goes.

wodahs · 08-08-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVL40L

You might be lucky the camera could have run out of film.

he did get lucky he didnt hit/hurt no one

the second poto - flash is a timed delay
first pic they have a reference , second timed pic they can see if your stoping or not , and they can calculate with their first pic (point of reference) how far youve traveled in a timed situation
x amount of distance in y amount of time = z amount of speed

BOOSTDEF · 08-08-2007, 03:11 PM

Its only $150 and 2 points up here in QLD. So ive been told.

I could be wrong.

Christiaan · 08-08-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wodahs

he did get lucky he didnt hit/hurt no one

the second poto - flash is a timed delay
first pic they have a reference , second timed pic they can see if your stoping or not , and they can calculate with their first pic (point of reference) how far youve traveled in a timed situation
x amount of distance in y amount of time = z amount of speed

Mate im honestly one of the safest thinking drivers there is. I never do stupid things around other people. If punt road wasn't do bloody slippery, the car would have pulled up fine, but honestly, anyone in my situation would have copped the same thing.

I will still appeal the decision and see how i go.

Casper · 08-08-2007, 03:21 PM

I know the intersection that this happened at and will say it is both slippery and in a bad position at the top of a long hill. When it rains its actually a dangerous intersection because of its location and shoddy road surface.
This intersection is a huge revenue raiser for the Bracks.. I mean Brumby.. or whoever gets the job next Government.
Fix the surface? Naaaah, more profitable to stick some camera's there.

Christiaan · 08-08-2007, 03:26 PM

Yeah casper, i agree completely.

I'm going to kick up a stink and say how bad the surface is, how the visibility was, etc. If that doesn't work, I'll find another way to make the authorities realise how bad the intersection is..

RG · 08-08-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuresm58

Yeah casper, i agree completely.

I'm going to kick up a stink and say how bad the surface is, how the visibility was, etc. If that doesn't work, I'll find another way to make the authorities realise how bad the intersection is..

Only one problem. You know what the surface is like, you knew that conditions were bad, you know that visibility was poor. Therefore they will just say that you failed to drive to the conditions and that it is your own fault, which is true because if you were such a safe driver you would have approached that intersection at a significantly lower speed to avoid the possibility of this happening. You stuffed up, which most people have at one stage or another, and now you are going to have to pay the price.

Imagine if it were not just a fine you copped for accidentally running that red, but a motorcyclist or pedestrian. You got off lightly.

EDIT: It is still a good idea to try to bring the surface of that road to those who can fix it.

Christiaan · 08-08-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedXR347

Only one problem. You know what the surface is like, you knew that conditions were bad, you know that visibility was poor. Therefore they will just say that you failed to drive to the conditions and that it is your own fault, which is true because if you were such a safe driver you would have approached that intersection at a significantly lower speed to avoid the possibility of this happening. You stuffed up, which most people have at one stage or another, and now you are going to have to pay the price.

Imagine if it were not just a fine you copped for accidentally running that red, but a motorcyclist or pedestrian. You got off lightly.

EDIT: It is still a good idea to try to bring the surface of that road to those who can fix it.

It was actually my first time driving punt road in the wet. I'm from the peninsula, and had no idea about what the surface was like on that road.

RG · 08-08-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuresm58

It was actually my first time driving punt road in the wet. I'm from the peninsula, and had no idea about what the surface was like on that road.

Even more reason then to take it a bit easier. I don't mean to sound harsh but if you had hit someone do you think you'd be getting anywhere near as much sypathy on here? Would you have even posted this thread?

Think about it like this, out of all the accidents that happen how many do you think any are actually done on purpose as opposed to someone having a bit of a stuff up. I do agree however that a fine and loss of demerit points will do nothing to deter you from doing this again as you didn't intentionally try to run the red so there is really no purpose for them, but that is the system and we must live by it. No matter how fatally flawed it is.

Christiaan · 08-08-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedXR347

Even more reason then to take it a bit easier. I don't mean to sound harsh but if you had hit someone do you think you'd be getting anywhere near as much sypathy on here? Would you have even posted this thread?

Think about it like this, out of all the accidents that happen how many do you think any are actually done on purpose as opposed to someone having a bit of a stuff up. I do agree however that a fine and loss of demerit points will do nothing to deter you from doing this again as you didn't intentionally try to run the red so there is really no purpose for them, but that is the system and we must live by it. No matter how fatally flawed it is.

I know what you're saying, but to this day, I've never ever gone through a red light because of lack of attention. This happened simply because I couldn't stop in time due to the roads being slippery. The intersection didn't do me any favours this particular night. I wouldn't have gone through the red light itself, as i would have seen it and stopped. It was the fact that as the light turned amber, I got into a situation where i needed to make a decision to either try and top and avoid the fine, or run through it and beat the camera. So i decided to try and stop to do the right thing, but couldn't because of the condition of the roads..

RG · 08-08-2007, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuresm58

I know what you're saying, but to this day, I've never ever gone through a red light because of lack of attention. This happened simply because I couldn't stop in time due to the roads being slippery. The intersection didn't do me any favours this particular night. I wouldn't have gone through the red light itself, as i would have seen it and stopped. It was the fact that as the light turned amber, I got into a situation where i needed to make a decision to either try and top and avoid the fine, or run through it and beat the camera. So i decided to try and stop to do the right thing, but couldn't because of the condition of the roads..

I understand what you are saying but the fact still remains, if you had been going 5k slower you most likely would have pulled up in time. Given the same circumstances though most members here probably would have the same outcome as you have had though. All you can do sometimes is grin and bear it and try to vote in a party who will abolish BS road rules at the next election, I call the anti unrealistic traffic law party lol, not that I think that in this situation a law change would do much as I am a strong suppoerter of red light cameras, even though they are only 1 dimensional and never tell the story to go with the events.

Maybe the answer is not still frames but simultanious recordings of entry to the intersection and of the actual intersection to give a clearer picture.

wodahs · 09-08-2007, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuresm58

Mate im honestly one of the safest thinking drivers there is. I never do stupid things around other people. If punt road wasn't do bloody slippery, the car would have pulled up fine, but honestly, anyone in my situation would have copped the same thing.

I will still appeal the decision and see how i go.

it was only ment as a quick dig , thats why i kept it short , but more so giving the info on why the second flash and how they get ya speed from that
sorry if you only picked up on my quick dig

Piotr · 09-08-2007, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manny_papa

can you ellaborate on that, doesnt seem right to me.
With wider tyres you have more tyre on the road which logically means more grip.

The width of a tyre has NOTHING to do with the size of the contact patch. Tyre Pressure and weight are the only things that will increase or decrease your contact patch.

09-08-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr

The width of a tyre has NOTHING to do with the size of the contact patch. Tyre Pressure and weight are the only things that will increase or decrease your contact patch.

So a 165 wide tyre with the same weight and pressure has the same contact patch as a 255 tyre..

Zoink · 09-08-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackLS

So a 165 wide tyre with the same weight and pressure has the same contact patch as a 255 tyre..

Yes if the tyres are the same diameter.
Explanation is here.
http://www.carbibles.com/tyre_bible_pg2.html
http://www.carbibles.com/images/contactpatch1.gif

Piotr · 09-08-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoink

Yes if the tyres are the same diameter.
Explanation is here.
http://www.carbibles.com/tyre_bible_pg2.html
http://www.carbibles.com/images/contactpatch1.gif

Regardless of the diamter of the tyre it will be the same.

Rodp · 09-08-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr

Regardless of the diamter of the tyre it will be the same.

I'm getting way too old to do the maths these days but imagine a car with a tyre the width of a bicycle tyre on the front and a tubbed rear with the fattest rubber you can stick on there and you're telling me that the contact patch is exactly the same for both tyres? Wouldn't neccessarily mean they would have the same lateral grip though?

I'm assuming that it has something to do with the load and distributing weight and would accept it on tyres that don't have that much difference in diameter, but would it still apply for the above scenario?

fordxc78 · 09-08-2007, 09:52 PM

Pressure = force / area

A wider tyre will have have less PRESSURE on the road surface.
This was one of the first "lectures" I ever got from my engineer father trying not to convince me that modiying cars was a good idea, same father who had wide tyres on his FJ Holden mind you.
(I just looked back and BLACK LS has already covered this, but without the formula)

Piotr · 09-08-2007, 10:10 PM

Rodp: If the car has a 50/50 weight distribution (Meaning that an equal weight is being applied to all tyres) and the tyre pressure is the same than the contact area will be the same. But just because the contact area is the same it doesn't mean they will act the same.

Fordxc78: 100% wrong. For starters the contact area remains the same. The pressure you talk about is acually Tyre Pressure so you can easily see that the only way to change contact area is to change tyre pressure or force (weight of the car)

Zoink · 10-08-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr

Regardless of the diamter of the tyre it will be the same.

Yes Piotr you are right, all other things being equal the contact patch will be the same.
I must have been away with the dolphins when I posted that.

red_hotxr6 · 10-08-2007, 03:45 PM

Dont worry all that tax you have coming to you will cover it...lol

jasjul · 10-08-2007, 06:59 PM

Definitely 3 points and $215 ish. Not sure of the exact dollars. Vic Police fines go up with inflation 1st of July every year these days.

Rev28K · 10-08-2007, 08:31 PM

Piotr

Just to further complicate things. Your weight distribution is going to change under hard braking isn’t it? There would be more on the front, especially if it has soft front springs/dud rear shocks. My car would 3 wheel into corners under very hard braking when it’s shocks were on the way out.

I know that the road was wet (less grip for the tyres and initial bite for the pads) so there wouldn’t have been as much rear/front weight transfer as in the dry but there would still be weight transfer affecting the contact areas.

Christiaan · 30-08-2007, 04:00 PM

just got the fine.. $220 and 3 points. apparently i was in the intersection for about 1.9 seconds?

i went back to the intersection to look at some stuff, and the red light cameras are actually in the way of the traffic light itself! you cant see the traffic lights until you're quite close to the intersection itself.

so you may say, well, you should have been looking up at the top light? well, there IS NO TOP LIGHT! how weird is that? the other side of the road has a top mounted light, but the city bound direction has no top mount set of lights.

this should be easier than i thought to fight..

Rodp · 30-08-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuresm58

just got the fine.. $220 and 3 points. apparently i was in the intersection for about 1.9 seconds?

i went back to the intersection to look at some stuff, and the red light cameras are actually in the way of the traffic light itself! you cant see the traffic lights until you're quite close to the intersection itself.

so you may say, well, you should have been looking up at the top light? well, there IS NO TOP LIGHT! how weird is that? the other side of the road has a top mounted light, but the city bound direction has no top mount set of lights.

this should be easier than i thought to fight..

There's only one traffic light at the intersection that's obscured by the red light camera? Have any photos?

T3man · 30-08-2007, 07:24 PM

Sorry I haven't read page 2 or 3 so this may have been said ...

When you get the Infringement Notice write in and ask for the photo. If the photo shows your brake lights are on then you can defend the matter with the following argument ... you were trying to stop (evidenced by your stop-lights) BUT in the wet conditions you were unable to do so, and therefore were "over the line" and committed to traveling through the intersection BECAUSE to come to a halt mid-intersection would have been even more dangerous for you and other road users on the cross road.

alecrain · 17-09-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuresm58

just got the fine.. $220 and 3 points. apparently i was in the intersection for about 1.9 seconds?

i went back to the intersection to look at some stuff, and the red light cameras are actually in the way of the traffic light itself! you cant see the traffic lights until you're quite close to the intersection itself.

so you may say, well, you should have been looking up at the top light? well, there IS NO TOP LIGHT! how weird is that? the other side of the road has a top mounted light, but the city bound direction has no top mount set of lights.

this should be easier than i thought to fight..

so..... how did you go?
Keep us posted on the appeal process.

Christiaan · 17-09-2007, 11:36 PM

ive got the image request envelope here.. the fine is due on the 28th of this month, so i will get the letter posted very soon!